- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:51:00 -0800
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
I had an action item to to write up the addition of infault and outfault at the binding level plus modifications of the component model. (LC55) Define a Binding Fault Reference component with the following properties: {fault reference} REQUIRED - A Fault Reference component. {features} OPTIONAL - A set of Feature components. {properties} OPTIONAL - A set of Property components. The pseudo-schema for a binding operation would be updated to look like this: <operation ref="xs:QName" > <documentation />? <input messageLabel="xs:NCName"? > <documentation />? <feature ... />* <property ... />* </input>* <output messageLabel="xs:NCName"? > <documentation />? <feature ... />* <property ... />* </output>* <infault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?> <documentation />? <feature ... />* <property ... />* </infault>* <outfault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?> <documentation />? <feature ... />* <property ... />* </outfault>* <feature ... />* <property ... />* </operation>* The mapping of a binding infault <infault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?> <documentation />? <feature ... />* <property ... />* </infault>* to a Binding Fault Reference component BFR would be as follows: (the notation C.{P} denotes property {P} of component C) 1. start with the Binding Operation BO; 2. BO.{operation reference} is an Interface Operation component I; 3. I.{fault references} is a set of Fault Reference components; 4. the value of BFR.{fault reference} is the unique element FR of I.{fault references} such that a. FR.{fault reference}.{name} == the value of the @ref attribute of wsdl:infault b. FR.{message label} == the value of the @message label of wsdl:infault (*) c. FR.{direction} == 'in' (*) For consistency with the mapping rules for the Fault Reference component, the @message attribute is optional provided that there is only one message in the MEP used by I whose corresponding fault has the 'in' direction (of course, taking the fault rule used by the MEP into account). Similarly for a binding outfault, with 'out' in place of 'in'. In part 3, we'd extend the pseudo-schema so as to allow wsoap:module inside the binding infault/outfault elements: <operation ref="xs:QName" whttp:location="xs:anyURI"?? whttp:transferCodingDefault="xs:string"?? > wsoap:mep="xs:anyURI"? wsoap:action="xs:anyURI"? > <documentation />? <wsoap:module ... />* <input messageLabel="xs:NCName"? whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? > <documentation />? <wsoap:module ... />* <feature ... />* <property ... />* </input>* <output messageLabel="xs:NCName"? whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? > <documentation />? <wsoap:module ... />* <feature ... />* <property ... />* </output>* <infault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"? whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? > <documentation />? <wsoap:module ... />* <feature ... />* <property ... />* </infault>* <outfault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"? whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? > <documentation />? <wsoap:module ... />* <feature ... />* <property ... />* </outfault>* <feature ... />* <property ... />* </operation>* Section 2.6.2 would be amended so that the {soap modules} property becomes applicable to Binding Fault Reference components. Roberto -- Roberto Chinnici Java Web Services Sun Microsystems, Inc. roberto.chinnici@sun.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 02:46:55 UTC